1990-02-21February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
189
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 21, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 7:32
p.m.), David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Walter F.
Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the consent agenda as information. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. County of Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court, Report on Audit, for the year ended June 30, 1989, as prepared by the
Auditor of Public Accounts (on file in Clerk's office), received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 6, 1990,
received as information.
Item No. 4.3. County Executive's Financial Report for December, 1989,
received for information as follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1989 TO DECEMBER 31, 1989
GENERAL FUND
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
47,205,381 33,613,088 13,592,293 71.21%
4,030,235 1,619,854 2,410,381 40.19%
182,370 10,983 171,387 6.02%
886,595 886~595 0 + 100.00%
52,304,581 36,130,520 16,174,061 69.08%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
NONDEPARTMENTAL
TOTAL
3,281,497 1,741,754
1,190,246 572,294
4,923,796 2,786,966
1,878,248 995,230
3,291,121 1,645,473
27,003,594 13,492,574
1,860,606 875,947
1,424,255 653,037
3,533,297 1,920,970
3,917~921 86,460
52,304,581 24,770,705
1,539,743 + 53.08%
617,952 + 48.08%
2,136,830 + 56.60%
883,018 + 52.99%
1,645,648 + 50.00%
13,511,020 + 49.97%
984,659 + 47.08%
771,218 + 45.85%
1,612,327 + 54.37%
3,831~461 + 2.21%
27,533,876 + 47.36%
February 21,
(Page 2)
SCHOOL FUND
1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
1989/90 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
190
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
504,313
17,793,385
357,600
27~331,258
45,986,556
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
89/90
APPROP
REVENUES
35,926,619
1,632,075
4,071,242
3,883,929
472~691
45,986,556
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
1989/90
EST. REVENUE
240,000
527,040
12,069,583
2,805,670
1~431~570
17,073,863
EXPENDITURES
89/90
APPROP
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
236,594
29,908
569,795
1,603,494
12,501,622
1,915,955
357,928
7,559,932
0
13,486~338
21,404,198
EXP/OBLIG
YTD
14,103,569
941,554
2,292,427
1,862,770
375,891
19,576,211
RECEIPTS
YTD
169,065
0
2,957,664
2,805,670
1,421~070
7,353,469
EXP/OBLIG
YTD
188,830
0
289,087
233,640
11,132,572
641,880
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
146,385 70.97%
10,233,453 42.49%
357,600 0.00%
13~844~920 - 49.34%
24,582,358 - 46.54%
BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
YTD YTD
21,823,050 + 39.26%
690,521 + 57.69%
1,778,815 + 56.31%
2,021,159 + 47.96%
96~800 + 79.52%
26,410,345 + 42.57%
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
70,935 70.44%
527,040 0.00%
9,111,919 24.51%
0 100.00%
10~500 99.27%
9,720,394 43.07%
BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL
OTHER FUNDS
216~495
17,073,863
1989/90
YTD YTD
47,764 + 79.81%
29,908 + 0.00%
280,708 + 50.74%
1,369,854 + 14.57%
1,369,050 + 89.05%
1,274,075 + 33.50%
+ 50.68%
+ 73.77%
109~724 106~771
12,595,733 4,478,130
RECEIPTS BALANCE
COLLECTED
REVENUES
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
CDBG-AHIP
T J HEALTH EDUCATION
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
EST.
REVENUE
0
30,299
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,470,530
YTD
4,084
23,089
409,762
121,157
0
24,013
108,486
57,949
472,585
YTD YTD
(4,084)+ 0.00%
7,210 - 76.20%
(409,762)+ 0.00%
(121,157)+ 0.00%
0 + 0.00%
(24,013)+ 0.00%
(108,486)+ 0.00%
(57,949)+ 0.00%
997,945 - 32.14%
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
SLIAG PROGRAM
CBIP SEVERE
E. D. PROGRAM
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND
JOINT SECURITY
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
510,628
51,893
49,000
89,200
0
0
0
0
0
419,823
557,501
683,960
0
10,000
2,193,225
0
162,294
3,833
12,281
1,060
0
0
0
0
3,933
780
1,913
172,756
198,774
2,503
943,011
268,442
348,334 - 31.78%
48,060 - 7.39%
36,719 - 25.06%
88,140 - 1.19%
0 - 0.00%
0 - 0.00%
0 - O.OO%
0 - O.OO%
(3,933)+ 0.00%
419,043 - 0.19%
555,588 - 0.34%
511,204 - 25.26%
(198,774)+ 0.00%
7,497 25.03%
1,250,214 43.00%
(268,442)+ 0.00%
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
191
717,862 331,572 386,290 46.19%
152,230 20,786 131,444 - 13.65%
318,023 28,930 289,093 9.10%
67,735 33,867 33,868 50.00%
2~098~389 480~970 1~617~419 - 22.92%
9,420,298 3,888,830 5,531,468 41.28%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 30,299
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0
CDBG-AHIP 0
T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0
FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530
CHAPTER I 510,628
CHAPTER II 51,893
MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000
MISC. SCHOOL CRANTS 89,200
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0
SLIAG 0
CBIP SEVERE 419,823
E D PROGRAM 557,501
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 0
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000
3OINT SECURITY FUND 2,193,225
3OINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 0
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 717,862
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 152,230
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 318,023
VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735
DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~098,389
TOTAL 9,420,298
5,499 (5,499)- 0.00%
15,665 14,634 + 51.70%
420,638 (420,638)- 0.00%
121,157 (121,157)- 0.00%
0 0 - 0.00%
50,785 (50,785)- 0.00%
466,384 (466,384)- 0.00%
43,022 (43,022)- 0.00%
577,768 892,762 + 39.29%
191,340 319,288 + 37.47%
22,323 29,570 + 43.02%
22,770 26,230 + 46.47%
27,835 61,365 + 31.21%
0 0 + 0.00%
0 0 + 0. OO%
0 0 + 0. OO%
0 0 + 0. OO%
8,316 (8,316)- 0.00%
162,760 257,063 + 38.77%
171,271 386,230 + 30.72%
212,746 471,214 + 31.11%
237,799 (237,799)- 0.00%
0 10,000 + 0.00%
1,063,198 1,130,027 + 48.48%
982,451 (982,451)- 0.00%
357,510 360,352 + 49.80%
46,230 106,000 + 30.37%
6,587 311,436 + 2.07%
33,867 33,868 + 50.00%
493~839 1~604~550 + 23.53%
5,741,760 3,678,538 + 60.95%
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-89-22. Reynovia Land Trust. To amend ZMA-85-29,
Mill Creek, to permit disturbance of the 30 foot buffer zone. Property,
described as Tax Map 77, Parcels 11 and llD1 (25.38 acres), is located on the
west side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) adjacent to the National Guard
Armory. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the DailyProgress on February 6
and February 13, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Summary: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with
ZMA-85-29, Section 26.10.3, and the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, and recommends approval of the request on parcel llD1 only.
Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting that grading be allowed
within the 30 foot buffer required by Section 26.10.3. The applicant
is requesting elimination of the 30 foot buffer on Parcel liD and a
portion of Parcel llD1 noted as Parcel A2. This section prohibits
grading 'Except, the Commission may waive this requirement in a
particular case where it has been demonstrated that grading or clear-
ing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided
that:
a. minimum screening requirements are met; and
existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is sub-
stantially restored.'
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
192
The applicant has submitted justification for this request. Staff
agrees with the applicant's assessment of the ability of the existing
Virginia pines to serve as a buffer. The existing 30 foot buffer of
Virginia pines is susceptible to toppling. The applicant has stated
that he will install 'two rows of six foot to eight foot white pines
on 15 feet staggered centers with a slope of not steeper than 3:1'
Staff does not support the applicant's request for elimination of the
30 foot buffer on Parcel liD. The existing vegetation on this parcel
consists of mature hardwoods which provide an effective buffer which
would not be substantially restored by the applicant's proposed
plantings.
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal exceeds the minimum
requirements and is superior to the existing buffer on Parcel llD1.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-22 Reynovia Land Trust
with a reduction in area to only Tax Map 77, Parcel llD1, subject to
the following proffer:
Planting of two rows of six foot to eight foot white pines on 15
feet staggered centers with a finished grade of not steeper than
3:1.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 6,
1990, unanimously recox~ended approval of ZMA-89-22 with a reduction in area
to only Tax Map 77, Parcel llD1, and as set out in the above proffered state-
ment.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr., represent-
ing the applicant, said he agrees with the staff comments and is present to
answer any questions Board members may have.
There being no one else present to speak regarding this request, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said he concurs with the recommendation and then offered motion
to approve ZMA-89-22 for Tax Map 77, Parcel llD1, proffered as follows:
Planting of two rows of six to eight foot white pines on 15 feet
staggered centers with a finished grade of not steeper than 3:1.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-97. Trinity Presbyterian Church. For a
special use permit to use existing Sunday School rooms and related support
facilities for a pre-school. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 17C1,
is located on the west side of Old U.S. Rt, 29 South, north of the 1-64 (Exit
22) interchange. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on February 6 and February 13, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Residential properties are located to the
north and west of the church site. Route 702 provides the northern
boundary. The 3efferson Lodge Retirement property and the Chinese
Dragon Restaurant are located on the west side of Old U. S. Route 29
north of Route 702. The Virginia Department of Forestry property lies
on the east side of Fontaine Avenue Extended across from the site.
Staff Con~nent: The applicant is proposing to use existing Sunday
School rooms and related support facilities for the operation of a
nursery school for children between the ages of two and a half to five
years of age. The facility is expected to accOmmodate up to 60
children, operating five days per week during morning hours. No meals
will be served.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
193
The operation as proposed does not require licensure by the Virginia
Department of Child Licensing, therefore Section 5.1.6(a) of the
Zoning Ordinance should be waived. Sections 5.1.6.(b) and (c) shall
apply as conditions of approval. Normally when a waiver is requested,
staff reviews the outdoor recreation facilities and the fire official
inspects the building to insure the facility will meet the Department
of Welfare standards for such operations. Staff opinion is that
existing recreational area, an enclosed outdoor playground to the rear
of the building and away from the parking lot, is adequate and a
letter of approval from the fire official has been received.
The Health Department has stated that the existing septic system is
adequate for the additional demand occasioned by the proposed use only
for a limited amount of time. The site is located within the Albe-
marle County Service Authority service area and the Church intends to
be connected to sewer within 18 months. The Health Department has
approved the temporary use of the existing septic system with condi-
tions.
Virginia Department of Transportation has stated the section of Route
702 up to the main entrance for the church is currently tolerable and
is hard surfaced.
Staff Summary and Recommendation: It is staff's opinion that this use
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, the charac-
ter of the district will not be changed, and that this use is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Staff recom-
mends approval of this request, subject to the following conditions:
The church shall connect to public sewer by August 21, 1991, or
such earlier date as deemed appropriate by the Health Department
in accordance with condition 2. Should the church not connect to
sewer by this date, the Zoning Administrator shall cause discon-
tinuance of the nursery school operation, and if deemed neces-
sary, forward this special use permit to the Board of Supervisors
for revocation;
Health Department approval of compliance with the conditions
outlined in their letter on January 16, 1990. In addition, the
Health Department shall inspect the drainfields' adequacy one
month after the nursery school operation commences and every six
months thereafter or until such time the church is connected to
public sewer. Should the Health Department determine the septic
system to be dysfunctional or otherwise inadequate, notice shall
be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for appropriate action;
Nursery school facility enrollment shall be limited to 60 chil-
dren; additional enrollment shall require amendment to this
special use permit;
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the
Albemarle County Fire Official, at his discretion. Failure to
promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be
deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordi-
nance;
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein
shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of
the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of
Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or
federal agency."
Mr. Cilimberg said the wording of conditions 1 and 2 are intended to
provide the Zoning Administrator with the flexibility to work with the church
to connect to public sewer.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 13,
1990, unanimously recommended approval subject to conditions of the staff with
an amendment to condition 3 as follows:
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
194
Be
Nursery school facility enrollment shall be limited to 60 chil-
dren. Use shall operate five days per week. No meals shall be
served until connection to public water and sewer. Additional
enrollment shall require amendment to this special use permit;
Mr. Bowie asked the status of condition 2 if the Health Department does
not inspect the drainfields every six months. Mr. Cilimberg said the condi-
tion would be unenforceable since the County has to rely on the Health Depart-
ment for inspection.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the wording in condition 2, "No meals shall be
served until connection to public water and sewer" refers to cooked meals.
Mr. Cilimberg said the condition refers to any meals involving preparation on-
site where there would be use of water or disposal that might get into the
septic system. This does not refer to snacks. At this time, this is intended
to be a morning operation only.
The public hearing was opened. Representing Trinity Presbyterian, Mr.
Michael Dowling, Church Administrator, Ms. Helen Holbrook, Director of
Children's Ministries, and Ms. Cindy Thacker, Director of the Pre-school, were
present. Ms. Holbrook said preparation of meals would put the operation in
the category of a day care facility and would require state licensure. The
nursery school will not serve meals. Her interpretation of a meal is the same
as that stated by Mr. Cilimberg. The children will be bringing snacks from
home.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain said although the staff report states that the nursery school
shall operate during morning hours, the recommended conditions do not address
the hours of operation. Mr. Cilimberg said there was no reason for not
referencing the morning hours in the conditions. A condition could be added
to the permit. Mr. Bowie then asked the applicants their intended hours of
operation. Ms. Holbrook said it is not their intent to operate all day, only
from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon. If the hours were to change, the facility
would then be considered a day care and would require different regulations.
Mr. Bain said he does not think it is essential to add the hours of operation
as a condition because if there is a change the applicants would have to come
back before the Board for an amendment to the special permit. He wanted to
address the statement because it was not in the recommended conditions of
approval.
MOtion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to
approve SP-89-97 subject to the following conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission:
The church shall connect to public sewer by August 21, 1991, or
such earlier date as deemed appropriate by the Health Department
in accordance with condition 2. Should the church not connect to
sewer by this date, the Zoning Administrator shall cause discon-
tinuance of the nursery school operation,.and if deemed neces-
sary, forward this special use permit to the Board of Supervisors
for revocation;
me
Health Department approval of compliance with the conditions
outlined in their letter on January 16, 1990. In addition, the
Health Department shall inspect the drainfields' adequacy one
month after the nursery school operation commences and every six
months thereafter or until such time the church is connected to
public sewer. Should the Health Department determine the septic
system to be dysfunctional or otherwise inadequate, notice shall
be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for appropriate action;
Nursery school facility enrollment shall be limited to 60 chil-
dren. Use shall operate five days per week. No meals shall be
served until connection to public water and sewer. Additional
enrollment shall require amendment to this special use permit;
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
195
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the
Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure to
promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be
deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordi-
hence;
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein
shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of
the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of
Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or
federal agency.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-89-103. Henry J. Oswald. For a recreational
facility on a vacant 12.42 acre parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 32,
Parcels 20, 20A3, 20A4 (part) zoned RA, Rural Areas, and Tax Map 32A, Parcel
lB, zoned HC, Highway Commercial, is located on the east side of Rt. 29N,
approx, one-fourth mile north of its intersection with Rt. 649. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 6 and February 13,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct two
miniature golf courses, four batting cages and parking on property
zoned HC. A golf driving range is proposed on property zoned RA,
Rural Areas. The driving range is to be open during daylight hours
only. However, the other uses will be open from 8:00 A.M. to 11:00
P.M. year round. Access will be over an existing easement to Route
649. The applicant is not purchasing the property at this time but
will have a five year lease, with an option to renew.
Summary: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is of the opinion that this
request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and that the character of the district will not be changed.
Staff recommends approval of SP-89-103 for Henry Oswald.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The proposed site lies on land
zoned HC, Highway Commercial, in the Community of Hollymead and on
land designated and zoned as Rural Areas. The more intensive uses
(batting cages, miniature golf course and parking) are proposed on
land designated as Regional Service in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan states 'Regional service on Route 29 North at Route
649. This area is intended to serve commercial service needs for the
Hollymead community, the airport, and Route 29 North traffic. This
location is expected to accommodate multiple uses for future commer-
cial development convenient to a variety of users.'
The typical primary uses for Regional Service include recreational
facilities (1989-2010 Comprehensive Plan page 239).
Some commercial uses are allowed in the rural areas in order to
provide limited basic support to remote rural/agricultural populations
(such as country store, day care, public garage, veterinary), or uses
which require large land areas such as swim, golf, tennis or similar
athletic facilities (reference Section 10.2.2.4) and horse show
grounds (reference Section 10.2.2.12).
Staff opinion is that this request is in keeping with the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
Design Issues: The applicant is proposing to leave a minimum 100 foot
tree buffer and install a net in order to protect adjacent property.
SP-86-79 for Phil and Mary Sheridan was a similar situation. It was
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
196
determined at that time that measures couldbe taken to protect
adjacent uses. Staff opinion is ~hat the net should be installed that
would protect adjacent property. While no lighting is proposed, most
driving ranges are now lighted. Staff will recommend that there be no
lighting of the driving range. The Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors must determine that this condition is reasonable in that
it precludes expansion of the applicant's business. Staff opinion is
that lighting of the driving range would introduce an unwanted commer-
cial appearance into the Rural Areas.
Staff is recommending that no loudspeakers be installed on the site.
Staff's opinion is that loudspeakers would have an adverse effect on
adjacent residential and rural land.
Staff Recommendations: Staff opinion is that this request does
satisfy the requirements of Section 32.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of this request would
not, in the opinion of staff, change the character of the district.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-89-103 for Henry J. Oswald,
Jr., subject to the following conditions.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Planning Commission approval of site plan in general compliance
with Attachments A & B to include a 100 foot undisturbed buffer
around the driving range;
2. There shall be no lighting of the driving range;
3. There shall be no loudspeakers."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 6,
1990, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions as recommend-
ed with an amendment to condition 3 as follows:
There shall be no loudspeakers on the east side of the access
easement and sound of any speaker, radio, etc., shall be limited
to 40 decibels at the nearest residential property line.
Mr. Bowie asked the distance of the nearest residential property line.
Mr. Cilimberg said the nearest property line is about 150 feet. The actual
residential units are approximately 500 feet. The 100 foot buffer is between
the property line and residential units. Mr. Bain asked if the trees will be
cut significantly in the area of the driving range. Mr. Cilimberg said the
area is fairly wooded and will require significant cutting, but will also
allow the opportunity to maintain all of the existing vegetation for the
buffering.
At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Henry Oswald, the
applicant, addressed the Board. The proposal is for a family-type recrea-
tional facility with miniature golf courses, batting cages and driving range.
He then explained his proposal for the site. The applicant agrees to switch
the miniature golf course from the east side to the west side. The applicant
also agrees that the driving range will not be lighted and that operation is
for daylight hours only.
Mr. Bowie commented that the applicant is requesting the facility to
remain open until 11:00 p.m. every night, year-round, and said that seems to
be rather late. Mr. Oswald said the facility actually closes at 10:00 p.m.,
and this would allow everyone to leave by 11:00 p.m. Mr. Bowie asked if the
applicant would object to a condition to the effect that "ticket sales for the
batting cages and miniature golf will stop at 10:00 p.m. and the facility will
close at 11:00 p.m." Mr. Oswald responded "no", because that is their intent.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested a condition stating "non-operating hours shall be
between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m."
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed. Mr. Bowie said this property lies in his district. He has no problem
with the application, but would like to add a fourth condition concerning
non-operating hours.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
197
Mr. Bain asked if the condition "no lighting of the driving range"
includes the facility where the people drive from or just the driving range.
He thinks that the condition needs to be more specific. Mr. Cilimberg said
the intent of the staff was that there be no lights on the driving range which
would allow its use after dark. Mr. Oswald again addressed the Board and said
the lighting is to include the area where the people drive from including the
entrance to the batting cage. The lighting is for security and safety. Mr.
Bain said he thinks that needs to be clarified in the condition. Mr. Bowie
suggested amending condition #2 to read: "There shall be no lighting or after
dark use of the driving range". Mrs. Humphris said consideration should also
be given to the type of lighting. Mr. Oswald said all lighting is downward.
Mr. Bowie asked if there would be a requirement for lighting downward at site
plan review. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes"
Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-89-103
subject to conditions #1 and #3 as recommended by the Planning Commission and
amendments to conditions #2 and an additional condition #4 as set out below:
Planning Commission approval of site plan in general compliance
with Attachments A & B (on file with the permanent records of
this meeting), to include a 100 foot undisturbed buffer around
the driving range;
There shall be no lighting or after dark use of the driving
range;
There shall be no loudspeakers on the east side of the access
easement and sound of any speaker, radio, etc., shall be limited
to 40 decibels at the nearest residential property line;
There shall be no operations or lighting other than for security
between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-110. Falls River Wilderness Center. For a day
camp on 79.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 85,
Parcel 3A, is located on south side of Rt. 636 approx, one mile west of its
intersection with Rt. 635 near Batesville. Samuel Miller District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on February 6 and February 13, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Description of Request: The applicant has submitted a written
description and justification for this request (Attachment A set out
following the staff report). The course involves several 'events'
which consist of various designs of rope and wood which create
'bridges' between trees. These events are elevated in height ranging
from six feet to more than 40 feet.
Summary: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section
32.4.1 and is of the opinion that this request is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that the character of
the district will not be changed.
Staff Comment: This property has applied to be in the proposed
Batesville Agricultural/Forestal district. The property immediately
to the east (Tax Map 85, Parcel 17B) has also applied to be in the
proposed Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. This district has
not yet been established and is currently under review. Review of
this special use permit has taken into consideration its consistency
with agricultural/forestal districts, specifically the prohibition of
more intensive uses in such districts.
The request does not involve grading or clearing and no structures are
proposed as the ropes course has been constructed. No meals are
prepared on-site. Participants arrive in the morning and leave in the
afternoon and no overnight accommodations are provided.
198
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Route 636 is a gravel road.and is currently listed as non-tolerable.
Staff opinion is that the proposed use would result in lower traffic
volumes when compared to a potential subdivision of the parcel. Staff
has assumed a potential development of eight lots resulting in 80
vehicle trips per day. From the applicant's description of the
activity, not more than 20 vehicle trips per day should occur from the
proposed use. Staff is recommending that no subdivision occur without
amendment of this permit. Participants generally arrive by car or van
pool. Adequate parking areas exist on site.
Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with Section
32.4.1. Staff notes that, if there is no subdivision and additional
residential development or expansion of this proposed use, use of this
property will be less intense than would occur with standard rural
subdivision and associated residential development. Also, with no
additional grading or clearing of the property, the natural state of
the property will be maintained. Staff feels that this is both
consistent with the intent of the Rural Areas District and the pro-
posed agricultural/forestal district. Staff does not anticipate
expansion of this use and the applicant should be aware that any
proposed expansion will necessitate a new special use permit. Staff
recommends approval of SP-89-110, Falls River Wilderness Center,
subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions:
1. Approval by the Virginia Department of Health;
Outdoor fires shall be approved by the Albemarle County Fire
Official;
No subdivision or additional residential development shall occur
without amendment of this special use permit;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance permit;
5. No additional grading or clearing of property;
Sketch plan showing location and description of activities to be
submitted within 60 days of the issuance of this special use
permit;
No additional activities shall be installed without amendment of
this special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following Attachment A submitted by the
applicants:
"Falls River Wilderness Center
Description of Request: Falls River Center will offer one or two day
programs that encourage personal growth through safe, challenging
activities. The Center consists of a Ropes Course which is located in
a remote outdoor setting away from roads or built structures. The
Ropes Course is a carefully planned and precisely built experiential
learning center, designed to create situations that promote a height-
ened understanding of human resource and potential. A team of 8 10
people visits a series of 'events' built of wood, rope, steel cable,
and the natural forest environment. For example, at the 'Zip Line', a
participant is asked to walk up a cable bridge to a platform in a
tree, where an instructor attaches his safety harness to a pulley
which runs along another long cable. When the participant leaves the
platform, he is transported three hundred feet down and out over a
meadow to a point where his teammates wait to take him off the pulley.
Most Center activities will take place from May to October. The
anticipated participation is expected to be 300 people per year (30
sessions of 10 people each). There is a parking area located out of
sght of all roadways. There is no grading or clearing of trees
involved with this project.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
199
Justification of Request: The Ropes Center is an opportunity for
people who work together to share an adventure and learn about team-
work, cormnunication skills, and group cohesiveness. It is also an
experience that brings parents and children, clubs, and groups of
friends closer together and more in touch with the natural world. It
is a low intensity use and entirely appropriate for a woodland part of
a rural area and will have no impact on adjacent properties. It helps
satisfy the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan goals for 'conserving
natural resources' and 'meeting human service needs through a combina-
tion of public and private effort'. The Center has provided program-
ming for teachers, administrators, and students of Albemarle County
Schools."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 6,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-110 subject to the conditions
of the staff with an amendment to condition 4:
Use shall be limited to 30 sessions per year, ten persons per
session;
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant requested that the Planning Commission
not require a commercial entrance permit because of the road and the natural
state of the entrance. The applicant felt a commercial entrance would alter
the character of the area.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:13 p.m.) Mr. Perkins asked the
purpose of the outdoor fires. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant can respond to
that. Mrs. Humphris said condition 2 indicates that every time there is a
fire the Fire Official is to come out and inspect it. In the February 6
Planning Commission minutes it states that the Official needed to make an
initial inspection of the pit and then periodically, thereafter, but would not
require separate approval each time an outdoor fire was planned. (Mr. St.
John returned at 8:20 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said the intent of the condition is
to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Condition 2 gives the County the flexi-
bility to provide inspections periodically or if the County felt inspections
were needed regularly, that also would be allowed.
The public hearing was opened. Ms. Betsy Dalgliesch and Mr. Rick Haupt,
the applicants, were present. Ms. Dalgliesch said this program is based on an
action, reflection, model where participants are involved in a challenging
action. A lot of the program involves the group sitting around, enjoying each
other and figuring out how to work better as a team. Fires is not part of the
program and the impact is considerably low. The applicants have no problem
with the Fire Official inspecting the area of the fire. This is a pristine
wilderness environment and it is their intent to keep it that way. The site
is in the center of a hardwood forest and people would have about a one-
quarter mile walk to get to it. Mr. Haupt said he has nothing further to add,
but would answer any questions Board members may have.
Mr. Bowie asked if the applicants had any problem with adding Attachment
A as a condition since it clearly outlines the proposed use. He also asked if
there is any planned overnight use of the site. Ms. Dalgliesch said no
overnight accommodations are planned, but once or twice a year it is possible
that a therapeutic group may come out and camp out for a two-day program. Mr.
Haupt is the owner of the land, which also includes his personal residence.
As information, she and Mr. Haupt teach minimal impact practices and are both
outward bound instructors. They have no problem with complying with any
conditions that seemed applicable to the'permit.
There being no further coF~ents from the .public, the public hearing was
closed. Mr. Bowie said he thought the issue of overnight use should be
cleared up, but he has no strong feeling about whether or not there is a
- condition. He does think that a condition should be added that the permit is
approved for general use as shown in Attachment A which clarifies the intent.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with Mr. Bowie. He likes the concept. Mr. Bain then
offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-89-110 with the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and an added condition 8, as
set out below:
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
1. Approval by the Virginia Department of Health;
2. Outdoor fires shall be approved by the Albemarle County Fire
Official;
3. No subdivision or additional residential development shall occur
without amendment of this special use permit;
4. Use shall be limited to 30 sessions per year, ten persons per
session;
5. No additional grading or clearing of property;
6. Sketch plan showing location and description of activities to be
submitted within 60 days of the issuance of this special use
permit;
7. No additional activities shall be installed without amendment of
this special use permit;
8. Use must be in accordance with Attachment A (Description of
Request and Justification of Request), as set out above.
Mr. Bain said in the minutes of the Planning Commission, there was
substantial discussion about the road and he concurs with the recommendation
of the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
2OO
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90;06. JWK Properties. To amend SP-87-98, JWK
Properties, to increase the height of the already approved Albemarle Carriage
Museum from current limit of 42 feet to a proposed height of 65 feet. Proper-
ty, described as Tax Map 112, Parcels 20, 21, 33A, and 37D; and Tax Map 113,
Parcel 6A, zoned RA, Rural Areas, with SP-87-8t and SP-87-98. Property
located on the east side of Rt. 20 south of Carters Bridge. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 6 and February 13,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the height request has been amended to 65 feet instead
of the 75 feet originally requested. He then gave the following staff report:
"Summary: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
intent of the height regulations (4.10.1) and recommends approval.
Staff Comment: This special use permit is being reviewed in order to
increase the height of the approved agricultural museum. This report
will focus on the request for increased height and not the museum use
which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 18, 1989.
The applicant is proposing to amend SP-87-98 in order to allow a
maximum height for the cupola structure of 75 feet. Section 4.10.3.1
allows agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm
buildings to be constructed to a maximum height of 100 feet. The
intent is to allow for architectural features consistent with the
agricultural uses being simulated by the museum. Prior special use
permit approval found this use to be supportive of the intent of the
Rural Areas District. The cupola as proposed is intended to be in
keeping with the scale of the museum structure itself and provide
authenticity.
Section 4.10.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states in part, 'It is the
intent of these height regulations to secure safety, to provide
adequate light and air, and to protect the character of districts and
the interest of the general public'
In order to secure safety the proposed cupola shall not be used for
sleeping or housekeeping purposes nor for any commercial or industrial
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
201
purpose. Access by the general public shall be prohibited. The
increased height will not interfere with adequate light and air due to
the fact that the museum is to be located approximately 2000 feet from
Route 20. Visibility of this development will be limited due to its
distance from Route 20 and adjacent properties.
The height of the cupola is proportional to the main museum structure.
One letter has been received concerning this petition. This letter
states general support for the applicant's proposal.
In the opinion of the staff, this request is in compliance with
Sections 4.10.1 and 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore,
staff recommends approval of SP-90-06 with the same conditions of
approval for SP-87-98 with the addition of condition 7.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance with right and left turn lanes;
Appropriate local and state agency approval of the provision of
sewage disposal and water supply;
Museum gift shop is permitted for the sale of material related to
museum artifacts; sales area shall not exceed 10 percent of the
total museum building area;
Landscape screening shall be provided from Route 20 in accordance
with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance;
This special use permit is for the use described by the applicant
in a letter dated November 28, 1988, addressed to Mr. John Horne,
signed by Phillippe de Villegas, Director, Albemarle Carriage
Museum and Driving Centre;
The agricultural museum shall be operated in conjunction with an
agricultural use related to the purpose of the museum;
The cupola to be constructed as indicated by applicant's archi-
tectural drawings and not to exceed 75 feet in height. The
cupola shall not be used for sleeping or housekeeping purposes
nor for any commercial or industrial purpose. Access by the
general public shall be prohibited."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 6,
1990, by a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of SP-90-06 subject to the condi-
tions as recommended by the staff, with the height.in condition 7 amended to
65 feet, not 75 feet. A second letter has been received concerning the
application. The letter is in opposition stating the fear that approval of
the request will have an adverse affect on the character of the area.
Mr. Bowie asked where the 65 feet is measured from. Mr. Cilimberg
responded ground level. Mr. Bain asked about lighting of the cupola. Mr.
Cilimberg said the applicant needs to address that issue.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fred Payne, representing the appli-
cant, said this structure is intended as an architectural feature designed to
carry visual weight and to balance the large building. He presented a render-
ing of the proposed building and cupola. A lot of study went into the actual
height of the cupola and it appears that 65 feet is more harmonious with the
surrounding area. He concurs that the 65 feet is to be measured from the
ground level immediately in front of the building and he has no objection to
that being added as a condition. Mr. Payne said it is not intended to be any
practical use of the structure except that there will be an air intake which
is part of the ventilation system.
With respect to lighting, it is not intended that the building be lit
with floodlights. The lights will be.very small accent lights. There will be
four lights, one located on each side of the cupola in the valleys and one on
February 21, lg90 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
2O2
each chimney, all aimed at the cupola. Therewill not be any floodlights or
spotlights. There will be a total of four 20-watt bulbs. The purpose of the
lighting is for ground navigation aimed at the building. Paths in front of
the building are lit from the reflection. The intent is that the lights
accent the cupola. Any outdoor lighting, except for security lighting, is
designed to be entirely extinguished except when the museum is open to the
public. Lighting will be on a timer and not subject to human error. A person
traveling by the property in the middle of the night would see no lighting
except for security and there would be no lighting on the cupola. Again, the
only purpose of the lighting is to accent around the building.
Mr. Bowie asked the purpose of the lighting if the museum is only to be
open from 10:00 a.m. until 4:45 p.m. Mr. Klm Doggett, the architect, said
those are regular business hours, but it is conceivable that there will be
night events. Mr. Bain asked what kind of night events. Mr. Doggett said, as
the architect, he is not the right person to answer that question, but museums
do have fund raisers, receptions, etc.
Mr. Bain said the recommended conditions of approval incorporate the
letter November 28, 1988, from Mr. de Villegas, which specifically addresses
the museum and visitors' admittance. A night event is not addressed. The
Board needs to know what is intended for the museum. If the intent is for
admittance from 10:00 a.m.-until 4:45 p.m., that is one issue. If there are
to be shows, openings and other functions in the evenings, that is another
issue which needs to be addressed. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Bain.
Mr. Payne said it is contemplated that the immediate area around the
museum is a place where people will be walking and would need to see where
they are going. Again, it is not intended that the museum be intensely used.
Mr. Doggett said there also has been discussion of an art class or some sort
of educational class at the museum in the evenings. Mr. Bowie said not in
accordance with the letter of November 28.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed. Mr. Bowie asked if there is sufficient staff control of enforcement
if different uses start occurring that are not outlined in the November 28
letter. Mr. Cilimberg said the issue would be at the Zoning Administrator's
interpretation. Mr. Bain said he would not like to leave an issue up to the
Zoning Administrator, if the Board can address it beforehand. He does not
think there should be inconsistencies. Maybe this permit needs to go back to
the staff to see if the special permit relating to the driving course
conflicts in any way with the request before the Board tonight. Mr. Cilimberg
said the activities of the driving course are separate and have no bearing on
the museum. Mr. Bain said he thinks other functions at night could be an
issue. Classes are not the same as a museum. Mr. Bowie said he does not
think this necessarily has to go back to staff, but he would like an answer to
his question as to why there needs to be lighting at night.
Since most of this happened before she was on the Board, Mrs. Humphris
said it is her understanding this special permit was granted for this particu-
lar agricultural museum in a rural area because of its relationship to agri-
cultural uses. It is also her understanding that the activities that take
place are supposed to be related to agricultural uses. She then asked about
commercial uses. Mr. Cilimberg said this occurred before he was involved in
approval of special permits, but he does believe that the commercial aspects
were recognized. It was determined that the use was supportive of agricul-
tural activity. Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the recommended
condition 6. Mr. Cilimberg said that condition has to do with the display of
the carriage museum which was considered to be indicative of certain eras of
agricultural history. Mrs. Humphris said the carriages are royal and ceremo-
nial carriages, not farm wagons. Mr. Agnor said the carriages are to be horse
drawn which is the agricultural aspect.
Mr. Bowie said the Board approved the special permit for the museum two
years ago and the only issue that needs to be resolved is the height of the
cupola. All other aspects of the use have been approved.
Mr. Way said if there are to be other activities going on at the site
during night hours, those activities should be included. The site is in the
middle of 350 acres and a 20 watt bulb will not have an impact. He thinks
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
203
the question of lighting is making a "mountain out of a mole hill". He has no
problem with the height of the cupola at 65 feet, nor the lighting as
described by Mr. Payne. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, to approve SP-90-0§, subject to the conditions as recommended by the
_ Planning Commission, with condition 7 as amended:
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance with right and left turn lanes;
Appropriate local and state agency approval of the provision of
sewage disposal and water supply;
Museum gift shop is permitted for the sale of material related to
museum artifacts; sales area shall not exceed 10 percent of the
total museum building area;
Landscape screening shall be provided from Route 20 in accordance
with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance;
This special use permit is for the use described by the applicant
in a letter dated November 28, 1988, addressed to Mr, John Horne,
signed by Phillippe de Villegas, Director, Albemarle Carriage
Museum and Driving Centre;
The agricultural museum shall be operated in conjunction with an
agricultural use related to the purpose of the museum;
The cupola to be constructed as indicated by applicant's archi-
tectural drawings and not to exceed 65 feet in height measured
from the ground level of the building. The cupola shall not be
used for sleeping or housekeeping purposes or for any commercial
or industrial purpose. Access by the general public shall be
prohibited.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(At 8:58 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
9:09 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-89-4. Lewis Mountain/University Heights Area B
Neighborhood Study. Amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include
the recommendations of the Lewis Mountain/University Heights "Area B" Neigh-
borhood Study. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 6 and February 13,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"This is a proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
to include recommendations of the Lewis Mountain-University Heights
'Area B' Study as stipulated in the Three Party Agreement between the
County, City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia. The
proposed amendments include both text changes and changes to land use
designations on the Land Use Map.
The Land Use Map changes are recommended in order to accurately
reflect the intended land use for areas presently shown in the Plan as
University property. All land use changes are located in Neighborhood
6. Attachment 1 shows the proposed Land Use Map changes. The Land
Use Map changes are as follows:
Change the land use designation from public/semi-public
(University) to low density residential for the property known as
Midmont, located at the end of Midmont Lane.
Change the land use designation from public/semi-public
(University) to low density residential for an area located west
of University Heights apartment complex, and south of University
property on 250 West.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
204
Change the land use designation from public/semi-public
(University) to medium density residential west of University
Heights apartment complex and Ivy Gardens Commercial Area.
One text change was recommended by the Planning Commission to specifi-
cally note that further development along Old Ivy Road (Route 601) may
be limited due to its present substandard condition. Attached is the
Neighborhood 7 Profile from the Comprehensive Plan which includes the
proposed text amendment (underlined on page 264).
One letter regarding these proposed changes has been received from an
affected property owner."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at 'its meeting on January 31,
1990, recommended approval of CPA-89-04, as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg said since the Planning Commission meeting, the staff has
identified two additional text changes that it feels would make this Compre-
hensive Plan Amendment consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
and consistent with the previous amendment made to the JPA/Fontaine Avenue:
"ForNeighborhood Six:
The Lewis Mountain area is designated low density residential.
Clusters of higher net density may be allowable if natural environ-
mental conditions are not adversely affected.
For Neighborhoods Six and Seven:
Consider design and public facility recommendations of the City/
County/University Planning and Coordination Council for the Lewis
Mountain/University Heights Neighborhood Study area.
Mr. Cilimberg said a letter was received from Mr. C. Venable Minor, Jr.,
an affected property owner, asking for a designation of high density on
parcels 35 and 35A instead of medium density. Mr. Minor's parcels are bor-
dered on the eastern boundary by University Heights Apartments and Parcel 40A,
which are presently high density; to the north, northwest, by Kluge Children's
Rehabilitation Center, University of Virginia office space and close by,
Teague Funeral Home. To the south, southwest is Campbell's Mountain. Based
on several considerations, the staff felt that medium density is the appro-
priate use for this property. The parcels are not deep; the staff did not
feel these parcels could carry more than ten dwelling units per acre; and
traffic generated from up to ten dwelling units per acre would be the maximum
to load onto this section of Route 250. Although University Heights is desig-
nated high density, its actual development density is closer to ten dwelling
units per acre. The staff also felt that medium density would create a
gradual transition in this area from high density to the other designated
areas. Medium density allows up to ten dwelling units per acre and a variety
of residential uses, including apartments.
Mr. Bain asked'how much of the University Heights property is built out.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that he thinks the back portion of what is owned by
Mr. Heischman, that has not gone into the water tank location, has the desig-
nated zoning that would allow for additional density to be developed. Poten-
tially that would allow for additional dwelling units such as an apartment
building. The actual density achievable is questionable because of the
terrain. Mr. Bain asked the density of University Heights. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that he did not know. Mr. Bain said the density of University
Heights is significant if the back portion of that property is high density.
Mrs. Humphris commented that there is another undeveloped piece of property
south of University Heights, adjoining Venable Minor's property owned by the
Wallaces, which is zoned high density.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Venable Minor addressed the Board.
He asked that the Board consider the front part of his property for office use
and the back portion for high density residential. Those designations would
be amendable with the surrounding zones. He feels that his property is out of
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
205
place as currently zoned. He would also like to know the true density of Mr.
~eischman's property because he thinks it is considerably higher than ten or
twelve units per acre.
Mr. Bain asked the acreage of the Wallace tract. Mr. Minor replied that
it is 1.6 acres. His acreage is 1.5 acres.
Dr. Ed Stevenson said he currently owns three lots. The lots were
originally designated for one dwelling unit per lot. At the moment, his
property is completed compacted by the University. At the present time, he
has no plans for developing or selling his property. If in the future he
decides to sell the property, he would like to have a higher density than one
dwelling unit per lot. His property contains more than six and one-half
acres. It is his understanding that the recommended zoning is up to four
dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Bowie asked Dr. Stevenson the location of his property. Dr. Steven-
son went to the map on the wall and responded that his property is shown with
a line through the middle of two of the lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff
did not realize the line was splitting a private owner's lot. Dr. Stevenson
said it was assumed that the University of Virginia owned the property.
The public hearing was closed. Mr. Cilimberg said the property of Dr.
Stevenson, Mr. Minor, and Mrs. Wallace is all zoned R-1. With the proposed
changes, Mr. Minor's property would be medium density, up to ten dwelling
units per acre, and Dr. Stevenson's property up to four dwelling units per
acre.
Mr. Bowerman said this sounds like a rezoning application and not a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He has never been involved in a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment with this parcel specificity. Usually the staff deals with
"blobs", looking at areas. The reason the Board is having difficulty with
this is that it is being asked to rezone the property, not change the Compre-
hensive Plan. He thinks that as long as there is flexibility to show the
University use, low density residential on Lewis Mountain and some sort of
residential use back from the highway, whether it be medium density or high
density is immaterial because those are questions that have to be answered
during the process of rezoning. He does not think it is appropriate to single
out individual parcels for specificity in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board
has argued repeatedly in the past that it should not try to do that with
amendments. As far as he is concerned Mr. Minor's parcel could be medium
density, high density or commercial density, but at this point he thinks the
parcel should be residential. He does not see how the Board can make that
type of decision tonight.
Mr. Bain said the reason this is before the Board is that the parcels in
question were thought to be University property. He agrees with Mr. Bowerman
regarding his comments concerning the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowie said he understands Mr. Minor's reasoning that if the Compre-
hensive Plan specifies the property for high density that would make it easier
to get an approved rezoning. Mr. Bowerman said the arguments come to bear at
the time of rezoning as to whether the rezoning is consistent with the adopted
Plan. He thinks it is appropriate for the Plan to have enough flexibility to
allow either medium or high density based upon the characteristics of the
parcel when it is specifically reviewed. Mr. Cilimberg went to the map
presented at the Board meeting, andsuggested that if the Board wants to
retain that flexibility that it show the area outlined in brown presently
shown as medium density, as high density to make it consistent with the
remaining area. Due to the topography, tree cover and visibility, the staff
considered the Lewis Mountain area as low density. Since Dr. Stevensons'
property lies within the Lewis Mountain area, he would suggest that it remain
designated as low density. For some reason the staff only looked at half of
Dr. Stevenson's property and therefore the other half was not considered. In
fact, they considered the property as belonging to the University. Mr. Agnor
said even though the boundary lines are incorrect, the Board could rectify
that now. Dr. Stevenson's property is completely surrounded by office ser-
vices. He would agree with Mr. Bowerman's suggestion to put a "blob" there
showing office services and not specifically oriented to a parcel. Mr.
Cilimberg said it makes sense since everything north of the boundary is office
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
206
services. Below the line and considering the lands' relationship to Lewis
Mountain would make sense for residential use. Mr. Bowie said he can support
that.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt
CPA-89-4, the land use changes and text change in Neighborhood Six, to adopt
the text change for Neighborhoods Six and Seven, and to adopt the change for
Old Ivy Road, as set out below:
The land use changes and text change in Neighborhood Six are as
follows:
Change the land use designation from public/semi-public
(University) to low density residential for the property known as
Midmont, located at the end of Midmont Lane.
Change the land use designation from public/semi-public
(University) to low density residential for an area located west
of University Heights apartment complex; except with an
additional portion surrounded by the University of Virginia to be
designated commercial/office services; and south of University
property on 250 West.
Change the land use designation from public/semi-public
(University) to high density residential west of University
Heights apartment complex and Ivy Gardens commercial area.
The Lewis Mountain area is designated low density residential.
Clusters of higher net density may be allowable if natural
environmental conditions are not adversely affected.
The following text change for Neighborhoods Six and Seven:
Consider design and public facility recommendations of the City/
County/University Planning and Coordination Council for the Lewis
Mountain - University Heights Neighborhood Study Area.
The following change for Old Ivy Road:
Further development along Old Ivy Road (Route 601) may be limited
due to the road's present substandard condition.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public hearing on a resolution of intent of the
Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service
area boundaries as follows: to change Tax Map 77, part of Parcel 25 (Blue
Ridge Hospital site in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Inter-
state 64 and Route 20 South) from "water and sewer" category to "Limited
Service" for water and sewer to existing structures only. To change Tax Map
77, Parcels 27, 29 and 30A (Michie Tavern site on State Route 53) from "water
and sewer" category to "Limited Service" for water and sewer to existing
structures and all structures shown on the final site plan approved July 20,
1989 and November 13, 1989. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 6
and February 13, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request from the Board is to reflect water and
sewer service to two properties southeast of the Route 20/I-64 interchange for
the appropriate service area designation. The areas are Tax Map 77, Parcel 25
(Blue Ridge Hospital site) to be designated "limited service water and sewer";
and Tax Map 27, 29 and 30A (Michie Tavern site) to be designated as "limited
service for water and sewer to existing structures" and all structures shown
on a final site plan approved July 20, 1989 and November 13, 1989.
Mr. Way asked if notification was sent to property owners. Mr. Cilimberg
said he would defer that question to the Clerk. The Clerk responded that she
did not notify property owners.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
207
The public hearing was opened. There being no one from the public
concerning this item, the public hearing was closed.
Following some discussion on who was supposed to notify the property
owners, Mr. Bowie suggested that the vote on this item be deferred to allow
proper notification to the property owners. Mr. Way said he would agree with
that suggestion.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer action
on amending the service area boundaries until March 7, 1990, to allow proper
notification of the property owners. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. lla. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Way, to support the
appointment of Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom to the Tayloe Murphy Commission on
Population Growth and Development, by adopting the following resolution:
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Tayloe Murphy Commission
on Population Growth and Development be continued and its membership
expanded; and
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Virginia Association of
Counties be authorized to nominate three new members to the Commis-
sion; and
WHEREAS, C. Timothy Lindstrom was a member of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors from January 1, 1978, to December 31,
1989; and has been an adjunct professor in planning law at the Univer-
sity of Virginia School of Architecture Division of Urban and Environ-
mental Planning since 1970; and has served actively on numerous boards
and commissions dealing with planning issues relating to population
growth and development, and is thoroughly familiar with and knowledge-
able of the critical issues facing localities as a result of the
significant growth of population and development which is being
experienced throughout many areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Virginia Associa-
tion of Counties to nominate as one of its three nominees to the
Commission on Population Growth and Development, C. Timothy Lindstrom
of Albemarle County.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recor.ded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was the offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to make
the following appointments/reappointments:
Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr., to the Advisory Council on Aging, with said
term to expire on June 1, 1991.
Mr. Burton M. Webb to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals, replacing Mr.
Kenneith O. Smith, with said term to expire on August 21, 1992.
Mr. Joseph T. Henley, III, to the Piedmont Virginia Community College
Board of Directors, replacing Mr. E. N. Garnett, Jrt, with said appointment to
expire on June 30, 1992.
The Honorable Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. to the Community Corrections
Resources Board, with said term to expire on December 31, 1992.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 208
(Page 20)
Mr. Burton M. Webb to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals, with
said term to expire on August 1, 1994.
Mr. Harold Timmeny to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corpora-
tion, with said term to expire on December 31, 1992.
Mrs. Frances Johnson Lee-Vandell to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improve-
ments Corporation, with said term to expire on December 31, 1992.
Mr. Thomas F. Stephens to the Jordan Development Corporation, with said
term to expire on August 13, 1990.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At the request of Mr. Bowie, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Mr. William Kehoe to the Industrial Develop-
ment Authority, from the Rivanna District, with said term to expire on January
19, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Mr.
Thomas McQueeney to the Industrial Development Authority, from the Charlottes-
ville District, with said term to expire on January 19, 1994. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Ms.
Barbara Staples to the Equalization Board, with said term to expire on Decem-
ber 31, 1990.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to reap-
point Mr. William L. Howard to the Equalization Board, with said term to
expire on December 31, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: June 14, July 5(A), July 19,
September 6(A), September 6(N), September 13, October 18(N), December 6(A),
and December 19; January 3, January 17(A) and February 7(N), 1990.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of June 14, July 5(A), July 19, and Sep-
tember 13, 1989 (pages 37-end) and found them to be satisfactory with a couple
of typos.
Mr. Way had read the minutes of September 13, 1989 (pages 25-37) and
found them to be satisfactory with a couple of typos.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of September 13, 1989 (pages 13-25) and
found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of January 3, and January 17(A), 1990
(pages 1-6 #4) and found them to be in order with some typos.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of February 7, 1990, and found them to
be in order.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
209
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of September 13, (pages 1-13) and December
19(A), 1990 and found them to be in. order with some typos. He would say that
the minutes of December 19 contains the best short synopsis of the entire
Solid Waste Committee Report. In two pages, the Clerk got the entire report.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: MesSrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the'
Board and Public.
Mr. Marvin Edwards, a resident of Albemarle County, said some people
think too much money is spent for education. Education is, after all, the
largest item in the County budget, accounting for about 68 percent of the
total budget. From a purely local perspective, this may seem like a lot, but
things are not as they seem. Mr. William Rasphberry, a columnist for the
Washington Post, reported in his January 20 column that although the United
States ranked third among the sixteen industrial nations in the amount spent
per pupil, this was only because of the high cost of attending college in
America. When you look just at public spending for kindergarten through
twelfth grade, the United States ranks fourteen, behind everyone except Ireland
and Australia. Charlottesville budgeted $5824 per pupil for the current
school year. The County only budgeted $4825. This was in spite of the fact
that the County's real estate tax base per pupil is about eight percent better
than the City's, yet the County spends nearly $1000.1ess per pupil. To match
the City's commitment per pupil, the County's taxes would have to be raised by
about 32 cents. In Mr. Rasphberry's words "we ought to stop kidding ourselves
that we are spending 'lavishly' on education" when actually "we're nickel-and-
diming our children."
Mr. Kevin Cox, a resident of Albemarle County for twenty-seven years,
said since last Thursday, he has spoken to several of the Board members and
spoken to literally hundreds of members of the public, on the street, in their
homes, and on the phone. The reason for all the "jaw-boning"was the 4/2 vote
to reject the Job Training Partnership Act (JPTA) grant to fund a day care/
child care educational program at Murray High School.
He would like to report to the Board that public opinion, as he reads it,
is overwhelmingly in favor of acceptance of the grant and establishment of the
program. The public believes strongly in the benefits to be gained from this
program. Keeping these parents in school and providing child care education
for them and other non-parent students will definitely reduce human and
financial costs for all of us in terms of future welfare payments, aid to
dependent children, paid to dependent child payments, and the terrible cost of
abused children turning into abusive parents. ?
The courage to stand up and say "I made a mistake, let's try again," is
something the public will respect. He urges the supervisors who voted against
acceptance to respond to the public desire and reverse his/her decision and
accept the grant. He would also like to point out to Mr. Bowerman and Mrs.
Humphris, in particular, that many in the public loOk at this issue as a test
of their ability to represent the best interests of~the citizens and act
decisively. The only reason that he is the only one here tonight is because
he told everyone to stay at home, but they are ready to come.
Mr. Bain said some residents have expressed concerns about the operation
and maintenance of the current landfill. He has spoken at and attended a
meeting concerning the landfill on how it can be improved. He has suggested
that these citizens meet with members from the staff to try to address the
issues. He knows that the staff has met'with some of the people, but he
thinks that something more needs to be done.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
210
Mr. Bain said he thinks that someone should look at the amount of square
footage that is counted in certain commercial developments, particularly as it
relates to underground development. This is an issue that is currently going
on in Northern Virginia. It is happening where density allotment below
ground level has not been counted. He does not know if it is a result of a
loophole in the Zoning Ordinance or in State enabling legislation, but he
thinks it is something that should be looked at.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to make a few comments regarding the
comments by Mr. Cox and the whole question of the vote the Board took last
week on accepting or rejecting the grant for child care funding. First, he
would to say that he appreciates the input he has received from many dozens of
citizens, whether they be pro or con for the decision the Board made. They
expressed their opinions to him, as to other Board members, and he thinks that
is the democratic process, and he welcomes that input at any time.
He also agrees wholeheartedly with what Mr. Cox has stated here tonight
in terms of his belief that a program like this would be beneficial to stu-
dents, to mothers, and to the community. His problem is that the comments he
has received, and the comments that Mr. Cox made, should have been made to the
School Board months ago when this was determined by them as a priority. It is
clear that the Board was given a recommendation in the absence of a policy.
It was not clearly understood or defined by the School Board, and he believes
that in the absence of a policy it is irresponsible to fund the program unless
you know where it is going. He has no philosophical problem with providing
child care.
He has often wondered why the School Board and the Board of Supervisors
were at odds. He thinks that in just six weeks, he is beginning to find out
why. What the Board was asked to do last week was like "tossing a live hand
grenade" to the Board and asking the Board to do something with it. It is an
example of fuzzy, mediocre, incomplete decision-making on the part of those
who made the decision, and he will not point the finger to the School Board.
It was not the current School Board, nor the administration, but everyone
collectively.
As an example, he talked to Karen Morris today who is the Director of
Social Services. Karen Morris was not consulted once about the implementation
of this program. As the Director of Social ServiceS, Karen Morris is responsi-
ble for providing these types of services to community residents. She was
disappointed in the decision of the Board, but she was not contacted by the
School administration or the School Board at the time this was first discussed
in December. He thinks that this question can go forward with no additional
action at this time by this body. He thinks the responsibility rests with the
School Board, as it always has, to set this policy. The Board of Supervisors
was not asked to discuss the family life program and did not do so. The
School Board took that matter up, discussed it within the community, and came
to a decision and implemented that program.
Mr. Bowerman said that child care in the schools, whether it is actually
offered in the schools or through CA-Tech or through any organization that is
outlined in the Youth Commission Task Force Report, which suggested the
implementation through CA-Tech using non-school funds, is a momentous decision
by any community to make, and he thinks it deserves full public scrutiny, and
full public understanding about the program. T~ launch into something like
thms the way ~t was presented to the Board xs no~~esponsibility that he
accepted when he took the oath of office to becomeZ~ a Supervisor of Albemarle
County· He will stick to the decision he made last week, but thinks "the ball
is in the court of the School Board" to formulate a policy, and if they so
choose, send a policy up with a request for a grant to the Board of Supervi-
sors.
Mrs. Humphris said she appreciates what David Bowerman has just said, and
she has some comments she would like to make on the request for an appropria-
tion amendment to the Education budget.
She is tremendously grateful to all of those people who have called her
to talk about the Board's majority vote on this appropriation request and
about her reasons for voting as she did. She heard from dozens of people on
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
211
both sides of the issue. Some said, "thank you", and some said others unkind
things. She has learned very quickly that abuse goes with the job.
There was no way for those people who were not present at the February 14
Board meeting to have complete knowledge of and information about the lengthy
discussions that took place during that morning session and again, during the
joint session with the School Board in the afternoon. Those discussions and
the questions posed reveal that she did not have the information available
that was necessary to justify the appropriation of public tax dollars. That's
what those dollars are. "They are not Federal Funds. They are not Free
Money. They are not a Gift. They are not a Grant. They are your tax dol-
lars.'' She considers it her responsibility to treat it with great care.
Among the many problems which surfaced in her consideration of the
request for the appropriation were these, which are just a few. The School
Board had no policy in place for the provision of day care in the school
system. If such a policy is to be instituted, it needs to be done through the
proper procedures, and after the public has an opportunity to express its
views. This grant seems to have been around since last September. It was
voted on by the School Board in December, but not brought to the Board of
Supervisors until mid-February. She has to wonder, where has it been and why
is the Board just getting it when the program is supposed to end in June?
Would it have been prudent, even if policy were in place, to adopt the program
for only a four month period, February to June? How quickly could the program
have been implemented anyway? What was the basis for the teacher compensation
of $19,4007 Was that for four months of the year, six months of the year,
what was that the Board was going to fund? Why was this program contemplated
for Murray Alternative High School and not for CA-Tech which already has a
child care program? What are the criteria for the Selection of students for
Murray given that the Board was told that approximately 12 girls had already
been selected for this program, and might they possibly have been better
served in a regular high school, as the CA-Tech program. That's where the
vocational program is for child care.
The Board needs to be concerned about what was planned for the physical
welfare of those babies involved. What criteria needs to be met? How long
does it take to get it ready? How long would it take to find and hire the
necessary trained teacher, the assistant? The teacher was supposed to have
very special abilities because the teacher was required to oversee the day
care, to provide classroom instruction, and to supervise internships. The
questions go on and on and the answers just were not available.
Mrs. Humphris said she would have been irresponsible in her duty to all
of the citizens of the County to have voted for this program given the lack of
a considered County policy, and without the opportunity for the proper proce-
dures to be followed. She is not insensitive to this very great problem of
children having children, but believes that it must be dealt with in the
proper manner. This grant was putting the cart way before the horse. She
hopes that when any such request comes before this Board in the future, it is
properly prepared and documented and has personnel present who can answer the
Board's questions so that she will be able to make an informed decision. She
cannot vote for any request unless she has a complete understanding of it and
all of the facts are on the table.
To continue what Mr. Bowerman said about the problem of communication
with the School Board, she had a very intelligent lady tell her late this
afternoon that she had just talked with an official in the School Board Office
who had told her that he did not understand how the Board of Supervisors could
possibly have denied the request for that grant. That was late this afternoon
and she is very disappointed. She has talked to her School Board appointee
about this, and hopes the request takes the proper course.
Mr. Way said he is not surprised at the cox~ents Board members have
received, nor the comments that have been made. He stands by the statements
that he made concerning the program. He thinks the County is already doing a
number of things for child care, and it is not surprising to him that the
Board did not have the information. He does not think the Board will get the
information from the School system, which he thinks is by design.
February 21, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
212
Mr. Bowie said he would add to Mr. Way's comments that for the six years
he has been on the Board, it has not gotten any information from the School
system.
Mr. Bowie asked staff to track Senate Bill 170 which concerns transporta-
tion zones. For information, the Board is opposing House Bill 1076 which
would allow double-wide mobile homes by-right in the rural areas. He thinks
that mobile homes have been allowed in Albemarle County for anyone who needs a
home, but he does not think the Legislature needs to tell the County where
these mobile homes can be located.
Mr. Bowie said he received a copy of a memorandum from Mr. William Kehoe
indicating that on Monday, March 5, 1990, 7:30 p.m., Lane Auditorium, the
Fiscal Resources Committee will hold its first public community forum. Unless
Board members object, he will start a press release to get information to the
media for release.
Mr. Bain said he found out last Friday that Senate Bill 412 concerning
equal taxing power, is dead in committee. The Virginia Association of Coun-
ties had contacted counties who had senators on the committee, but got no
response.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. There being no more information to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
CHAIRMAN